the perpetual excuse

[Guest Guest]

Considering he's the only one out of the two of you that knows that there is no space between the end of a question and a question mark, I think you ought to look at the board in your own eye.

74505[/snapback]

Whaaaat ???

[Guest Patriot]

(alright, that's it)

They'd be pissed off because WE ATTACKED THE WRONG COUNTRY, you F**KING idiot!

F**K you.

74506[/snapback]

That intelligent response tells me you know I'm right.

[Guest Patriot]

And you're stupid. The people we went to war against are not the ones who attacked us on 9/11. But then all those A-rabs look the same to you, don't they.

74520[/snapback]

I'll put this in simple terms so hopefully you'll understand.

The people we went to war with are terrorists. We killed the #1 terrorist and we are now killing more terrorists. The more terrorists we kill over there means the less terrorists that will come here to kill us. Let me know if you get it.

[Guest Patriot]

In case you haven't noticed, no one here is criticizing our invasion of Afghanistan, our deposing of the Taliban, or going after Bin Laden and friends. Those things are a genuine response to 9/11. Those things have some hope of actually addressing that problem, and doing some good. Those things were not unprovoked, unjustified, or misdirected. Those things do not bring shame upon our country.

But the war in Iraq is something else entirely. Its causes are not related to 9/11, though its peddlers have abused that fear and anger to gain support. It is you, liar and false patriot, who demeans the memory of those lost on 9/11 by trying to use their loss to support the unjustified and disastrous mess in Iraq. It is you who is disgusting.

74533[/snapback]

Very good ! You quoted word for word from the Loony Left Kool-aid drinking

defeatocratic handbook Surrender 101.

[Guest Guest]

So Japan and Germany happened only in our imagination?

Another Guest with mind shut tight.

74613[/snapback]

Germany and Japan both had relatively homogenous cultures, completely unlike Iraq. Their problem was not in getting a stable government, but that their governments often controlled the entire populace too tightly. There wasn't a major cultural opposition, as there is in Iraq.

Economically, too, Germany and Japan had both been players long before WWI and WWII, and the living standard of the population was much higher. Those countries faced economic rebuilding after the two world wars, but they understood what was required, and could see themselves doing it. That's not true in Iraq. If Germany and Japan were comparable to Iraq in the only sense that is relevant here, the course after Hussein was ousted would also have been similar.

[Guest Guest]

And a hypocrite! Gee, a right-wing hypocrite. What a surprise.

74583[/snapback]

Guest lies and Guest eats it up.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007 – The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components.

In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov14...ary.recruiting/

All active services met numerical recruiting goals for fiscal 2007. Only the Army missed a key quality benchmark: Twenty-one percent of its recruits in fiscal 2007 hadn't graduated from high school.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampt...0,5718037.story

Will the second Guest ever question the first about the supposed "need" for people to enlist in the armed forces despite the fact that enlistment goals are met?

Stay tuned ...

74698[/snapback]

Leave it to our resident stuffed shirt to cite an irrelevant benchmark as proof of success. If this was a real war, there'd be a draft.

[Guest Guest]

Germany and Japan both had relatively homogenous cultures, completely unlike Iraq. Their problem was not in getting a stable government, but that their governments often controlled the entire populace too tightly. There wasn't a major cultural opposition, as there is in Iraq.

Economically, too, Germany and Japan had both been players long before WWI and WWII, and the living standard of the population was much higher. Those countries faced economic rebuilding after the two world wars, but they understood what was required, and could see themselves doing it. That's not true in Iraq. If Germany and Japan were comparable to Iraq in the only sense that is relevant here, the course after Hussein was ousted would also have been similar.

74752[/snapback]

Gobbilygook.

[Strife767]

That intelligent response tells me you know I'm right.

74744[/snapback]

That's because you're an imbecile.

Why aren't we hunting the man who orchestrated 9/11? Let's see if you have the balls to give that question a straight answer, hotshot.

[Strife767]

Whaaaat ???

74743[/snapback]

Exactly.

[Guest Guest]

Irrelevant.  We were attacked repeatedly (WTC twice, Cole, marine barracks,

  night clubs, etc.).  Iraq was the first stop in a global war on terrorism. Sadam

  was thought to have WMD's (just ask John Kerry or Hilliary) so Iraq was a

  prudent first choice. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because we're taking

  the fight to the bad guys. I thank God that Bush was president during 9/11 and

  not Clinton.

74742[/snapback]

WHO attacked us is irrelevant?

You are stunningly stupid! By your standards we should have retaliated for 9/11 by attacking Canada. After all, the logistics would be much easier and according to your deranged pea=brain it's irrelevant who attacked us.

NITWIT!

[WilliamK]

Very good !  You quoted word for word from the Loony Left Kool-aid drinking

  defeatocratic handbook  Surrender 101.

74749[/snapback]

Since that appears to be your euphemism for telling the truth, I'll take it as a complement. Thanks.

[Guest a proud american]

I'll put this in simple terms so hopefully you'll understand.

  The people we went to war with are terrorists. We killed the #1 terrorist and we are now killing more terrorists. The more terrorists we kill over there means the less terrorists that will come here to kill us. Let me know if you get it.

74747[/snapback]

So if I understand you correctly, even though none of the terrorists that 1. Bombed the WTC in 93, 2. had nothing to do with 9/11 3. Had not been involved in any acts of terrorism within the United States were from Iraq but from Saudi Arabia and Jordan (both allies of ours) led by Osama Bin Laden, you're saying that Hussein was the number one terrorist in the world? Are you really that delusional?

And can you explain to me why Bin Laden hasn't been hunted down and killed or captured? And please don't blame Clinton. Bush was on duty on 9/11.

[Guest Guest]

Guest lies and Guest eats it up.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2007 – The first month of fiscal 2008 was a success for all active and reserve military components.

In a meeting with Pentagon reporters today, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said all components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07nov14...ary.recruiting/

All active services met numerical recruiting goals for fiscal 2007. Only the Army missed a key quality benchmark: Twenty-one percent of its recruits in fiscal 2007 hadn't graduated from high school.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampt...0,5718037.story

Will the second Guest ever question the first about the supposed "need" for people to enlist in the armed forces despite the fact that enlistment goals are met?

Stay tuned ...

74698[/snapback]

FYI ....... I served 4 years in the military, I have every right to call myself

a patriot ( unlike you LoonyLeft Kool-aid drinking white flag waving defeatocrats).

74735[/snapback]

Yeah? Where. Obviously it wasn't in combat, or you would already have told us all about it. You were probably peeling potatoes in a kitchen on a military base, which makes you a cook.

And don't even think about making up a story about your supposed military service unless you put your name to it.

[Guest Guest]

I'll put this in simple terms so hopefully you'll understand.

  The people we went to war with are terrorists. We killed the #1 terrorist and we are now killing more terrorists. The more terrorists we kill over there means the less terrorists that will come here to kill us. Let me know if you get it.

74747[/snapback]

What I get is that you don't care about the facts.

[Guest Guest]

Gobbilygook.

74809[/snapback]

I'm sorry sentences with more than five words are too hard for you to understand.

Oh, and you can't spell either.

[Guest Patriot]

That's because you're an imbecile.

Why aren't we hunting the man who orchestrated 9/11? Let's see if you have the balls to give that question a straight answer, hotshot.

74820[/snapback]

If you ask that question seriously, you don't read the newspapers. I won't

explain it to you.

[Guest Paul]

Irrelevant.  We were attacked repeatedly (WTC twice, Cole, marine barracks,

  night clubs, etc.).  Iraq was the first stop in a global war on terrorism. Sadam

  was thought to have WMD's (just ask John Kerry or Hilliary) so Iraq was a

  prudent first choice. We haven't been attacked since 9/11 because we're taking

  the fight to the bad guys. I thank God that Bush was president during 9/11 and

  not Clinton.

74742[/snapback]

How many of the terrorist attacks you alluded to were sponsored or materially supported by Iraq? Provide evidence to support your answer. Links to objective and reliable sources will suffice.

Even if any of those attacks had been sponsored or matierially supported by Iraq, what would be the justification for our continued presence in Iraq now that regime change has been accomplished? If the justification is that we can't just leave that country vulnerable, why wasn't that considered before starting the war? This so-called president said during the 2000 campaign that we should never embark on a miilitary venture into a foreign country without an exit strategy, but that's exactly what he did. Was he right about that in the 2000 campaign? If no, why did you vote for him? If yes, how do you justify his doing exactly what he said we should never do?

What do you think the effect is of having our entire military stretched paper thin because of its deployment in Iraq?

How do you expect the US to address a real military threat should it occur, with virtually no one left to deploy? Doesn't that compromise our national security? Justify your answer with facts, not name-calling.

Speaking of name-calling, how do you explain the numerous retired generals who have called this war effort a disaster? This is unprecedented, coming from recently retired generals who actually served in the war. How do you explain it, except by admitting that the war is a disaster?

Because of Bush's arroganct attitude and his actions, we've lost credibility with virtually every nation on earth. Does that matter to you? Why or why not? Justify your answer in light of the fact that terrorism presents a new kind of enemy, one that requires cooperation by nations all over the world to defeat it.

What's your position on re-instituting the draft, and why?

[Guest Paul]

If you ask that question seriously, you don't read the newspapers. I won't

  explain it to you.

74925[/snapback]

I read the New York Times every day, and I don't think there's a good answer to that question. I also don't think there's a good answer to why and how he got away.

[Strife767]

I won't explain it to you.

74925[/snapback]

Because you can't. You can't give but one good reason why we have stopped pursuing the man behind the 9/11 attacks.

[Guest Patriot]

How many of the terrorist attacks you alluded to were sponsored or materially supported by Iraq? Provide evidence to support your answer. Links to objective and reliable sources will suffice.

Even if any of those attacks had been sponsored or matierially supported by Iraq, what would be the justification for our continued presence in Iraq now that regime change has been accomplished? If the justification is that we can't just leave that country vulnerable, why wasn't that considered before starting the war? This so-called president said during the 2000 campaign that we should never embark on a miilitary venture into a foreign country without an exit strategy, but that's exactly what he did. Was he right about that in the 2000 campaign? If no, why did you vote for him? If yes, how do you justify his doing exactly what he said we should never do?

What do you think the effect is of having our entire military stretched paper thin because of its deployment in Iraq?

How do you expect the US to address a real military threat should it occur, with virtually no one left to deploy? Doesn't that compromise our national security? Justify your answer with facts, not name-calling.

Speaking of name-calling, how do you explain the numerous retired generals who have called this war effort a disaster? This is unprecedented, coming from recently retired generals who actually served in the war. How do you explain it, except by admitting that the war is a disaster?

Because of Bush's arroganct attitude and his actions, we've lost credibility with virtually every nation on earth. Does that matter to you? Why or why not? Justify your answer in light of the fact that terrorism presents a new kind of enemy, one that requires cooperation by nations all over the world to defeat it.

What's your position on re-instituting the draft, and why?

74932[/snapback]

Rediculous nonsensical questions.

[Strife767]

Rediculous nonsensical questions.

75026[/snapback]

In other words, you admit you can't answer a single one of them.

[Guest Paul]

Rediculous nonsensical questions.

75026[/snapback]

Many people have told me not to bother trying to have a discussion with this person, who calls himself Patriot. I would agree with that if he was just an isolated knucklehead. Problem is, he's not. There are millions just like him, for whom public policy can't be ugly enough or radical enough.

What do we conclude about his unwillingness to engage thoughtfully on the central and fundamental questions about our involvement in Iraq? Were the questions too hard for him, or has he gone one step beyond that and eliminated thought completely?

We've created an ugly radical-right culture in America, a culture conditioned to instant and simplistic answers to all questions. Substance doesn't matter. Everything depends on superficial appearance. For all the excesses of the American left, radical-right lunacy is not the answer; in fact, what pseudo-Patriot is doing essentially resembles the excesses and irresponsibility of the radical left (who are few in number now).

There will always be some people like pseudo-Patriot, rigid and authoritarian to the core, unwilling if not unable to think rationally. What has happened, however, is that we now have a mass culture of instant gratification that encourages and breeds this. Democracy, which depends on a thoughtful and informed citizenry, will fall apart unless we find a way to reverse it.

[Guest Democratic or Hippocratic]

Many people have told me not to bother trying to have a discussion with this person, who calls himself Patriot. I would agree with that if he was just an isolated knucklehead. Problem is, he's not. There are millions just like him, for whom public policy can't be ugly enough or radical enough.

What do we conclude about his unwillingness to engage thoughtfully on the central and fundamental questions about our involvement in Iraq? Were the questions too hard for him, or has he gone one step beyond that and eliminated thought completely?

We've created an ugly radical-right culture in America, a culture conditioned to instant and simplistic answers to all questions. Substance doesn't matter. Everything depends on superficial appearance. For all the excesses of the American left, radical-right lunacy is not the answer; in fact, what pseudo-Patriot is doing essentially resembles the excesses and irresponsibility of the radical left (who are few in number now).

There will always be some people like pseudo-Patriot, rigid and authoritarian to the core, unwilling if not unable to think rationally. What has happened, however, is that we now have a mass culture of instant gratification that encourages and breeds this. Democracy, which depends on a thoughtful and informed citizenry, will fall apart unless we find a way to reverse it.

75094[/snapback]

By many people I believe you do mean your minions. And as it has been pointed out over and over again on this website, anyone how you disagree with you start the name-calling. This time it is "knuckleheads". I guess with all the name-calling it makes your posts look much longer than they really are and the fact that you again have nothing to add. Since you believe Patriot has nothing to offer to the resolution in Iraq, I can only assume that you have the answer as to what to do? If that were the case, we here would love to hear it, since you like criticizing so much with nothing else to offer.

Maybe we have created a radical right wing country. But you are equal to blame as much as those who support it. And please enlighten us as to how we can reverse it? Maybe all the Republicans should turn Democrat to appease you? It is not going to happen. The problem with what you preach here is that in today’s society, people are more informed through the many news channels and through the Internet to make rational decisions. The fact that they are not what you preach here might be some indication that once again, you are wrong.

[Guest Patriot]

Many people have told me not to bother trying to have a discussion with this person, who calls himself Patriot. I would agree with that if he was just an isolated knucklehead. Problem is, he's not. There are millions just like him, for whom public policy can't be ugly enough or radical enough.

What do we conclude about his unwillingness to engage thoughtfully on the central and fundamental questions about our involvement in Iraq? Were the questions too hard for him, or has he gone one step beyond that and eliminated thought completely?

We've created an ugly radical-right culture in America, a culture conditioned to instant and simplistic answers to all questions. Substance doesn't matter. Everything depends on superficial appearance. For all the excesses of the American left, radical-right lunacy is not the answer; in fact, what pseudo-Patriot is doing essentially resembles the excesses and irresponsibility of the radical left (who are few in number now).

There will always be some people like pseudo-Patriot, rigid and authoritarian to the core, unwilling if not unable to think rationally. What has happened, however, is that we now have a mass culture of instant gratification that encourages and breeds this. Democracy, which depends on a thoughtful and informed citizenry, will fall apart unless we find a way to reverse it.

75094[/snapback]

Take the blinders off. In reality we've created an ugly radical-left culture in

America. A culture that shouts down and attacks conservative speakers at

universities, stages demonstrations holding obscene signs at funerals of soldiers

killed in Iraq and "blames America first" for all the ills of the world.

I've never seen a liberal speaker attacked or shouted down at a university, I've

never seen a conservative holding a vile placard at anyone's funeral in front of

their family and I've never seen a movie produced and funded by a conservative

that depicted the U.S. military as rapists and murderers (Redacted). Over one

million military personnel have served in Iraq and Afganistan and have served

honorably. Two (2) soldiers rape and murder a young girl (and are serving a life sentence) and a liberal film

producer makes a movie about it (which will certainly be a hit in the arab world

and will inflame anti-american sentiment causing american deaths. Your self-

righteous BS is so typical of the ugly radical-left culture.

[Guest Patriot]

I read the New York Times every day, and I don't think there's a good answer to that question. I also don't think there's a good answer to why and how he got away.

75007[/snapback]

The New York Slimes ?? No wonder you don't have a clue about so many topics.